The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments.  Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.


SC95538
Cary Newsome v. Kansas City, Missouri School District
Jackson County
Challenge to judgment awarding damages for wrongful termination in violation of public policy
Listen to the oral argument: SC95538.mp3
The school district was represented during arguments by Tyson H. Ketchum of Armstrong Teasdale LLP in Kansas City; Newsome was represented by Eric W. Smith of Siro Smith Dickson PC in Kansas City.

Cary Newsome sued the Kansas City school district for wrongful termination, alleging discriminatory termination, retaliatory termination in violation of the state’s human rights act and retaliatory termination in violation of public policy because he was a whistleblower. Prior to trial, both parties briefed the issue of whether the school district had sovereign immunity from suit or whether it had waived such immunity by virtue of its insurance coverage. At trial, Newsome testified he had been named purchasing manager in September 2009. He testified he was terminated after exchanges with the district’s chief finance officer regarding a consultant exceeding the work described in the consulting contract and regarding the purchase of certain vehicles Newsome testified did not follow district policy. As to Newsome’s claims for discriminatory termination and retaliatory termination in violation of the state’s human rights act, the jury found in the district’s favor. As to Newsome’s claim for retaliatory termination in violation of public policy, the jury found in Newsome’s favor and awarded him $500,000 in damages. The circuit court entered its judgment accordingly and overruled the district’s post-judgment motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial or for remittitur (reduction of the jury’s damages award). The district appeals.

This appeal raises several questions for this Court. One involves whether Newsome presented substantial evidence that he refused to violate a law or mandate, or that he reported wrongdoing or legal violations to superiors or public authorities. Another question involves whether one of the jury instructions constitutes reversible error. A related issue involves whether Newsome was required to prove an actual violation of law or public policy or whether he was required to prove only that he reasonably believed certain transactions would violate law or public policy. Another issue involves whether the instruction failed to specify the factual and legal bases on which the jury could find the district liable. An additional question involves whether Newsome’s claim was barred by sovereign immunity or whether the district’s insurance policy waived or retained its sovereign immunity defense. Further questions involve whether state law limits the amount of damages a school district can be required to pay under the circumstances of this case, the effect of the district’s insurance policy on any statutory maximum and whether the circuit court should have reduced the damages award.

The Kansas City and St. Louis chapters of the National Employment Lawyers Association filed a brief as a friend of the Court. The chapters focus their arguments on whether Newsome presented substantial evidence in support of his wrongful discharge claim, including evidence he was a whistleblower, and the propriety of the jury instruction regarding Newsome’s claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

SC95538_Kansas_City_School_District_brief
SC95538_Newsome_brief
SC95538_Kansas_City_School_District_reply_brief

SC95538_KC_STL_Chapters_Natl_Employment_Lawyers_Assoc_amici_brief



SC95707
Robert Hurst v. Nissan North America Inc.
Jackson County
Challenge to damages and attorney fees awarded in class action lawsuit
Listen to the oral argument: SC95707.mp3
Nissan was represented during arguments by Peter Brennan of Jenner & Block LLP in Chicago, Illinois; the consumers were represented by Kenneth B. McClain of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain PC in Independence. Cheryl Schuetze of the attorney general’s office was granted time, by consent, to argue on behalf of the attorney general, who filed a brief as a friend of the Court.

Nissan North America Inc. manufactured, from 2003 through 2008, a vehicle called the Infiniti FX. Beginning in September 2005, Nissan began to receive warranty claims based on a “bubbling” issue in the dashboards of FX vehicles, after which it changed its dashboard supplier. Nissan also alleged it extended the warranty for the dashboard, reimbursed customers who had paid to repair or replace a dashboard, and offered free replacement dashboards to customers who experienced problems. In December 2009, Robert Hurst sued Nissan on behalf of himself and other members of an alleged statewide class. Litigation ensued regarding the scope of the class. The circuit court ultimately certified a class of Missourians who had purchased, in Missouri, an Infiniti FX34 or FX45, model years 2003 through 2008. The certified class included new-car purchasers as well as secondary purchasers, so long as they had purchased the subject vehicle from a Nissan- or Infiniti-branded dealer. At trial, Hurst sought damages for violations of the state’s merchandising practices act and attorney fees, alleging Nissan made misrepresentations under the act when it advertised the FX as a “premium” or “luxury” vehicle (and similar statements emphasizing the vehicle’s quality). Nissan argued many class members either never experienced bubbling dashboards or had been given free replacement dashboards and, therefore, had not suffered ascertainable loss. The jury returned its verdict holding Nissan liable under the merchandising practices act and requiring it to pay $2,000 to every class member. The circuit court determined the final class had 326 members and, in March 2015, entered its judgment in accordance with the verdict, requiring Nissan to pay $625,000 in damages. It also awarded $1.9 million in attorney fees. The circuit court overruled Nissan’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for a new trial and to decertify the class. Nissan appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for the Court involving whether Hurst made a submissible case under the state’s merchandising practices act. One question is whether Hurst made a submissible case that Nissan’s advertising statements that the FX was a “luxury” or “premium” vehicle (and similar statements) constituted actionable factual statements or misrepresentations or were “puffery” that would preclude Hurst’s claim. Another question involves whether Hurst established a submissible case of ascertainable loss. Related issues involve whether Hurst introduced competent evidence supporting his theory that the bubbling dashboards gave the vehicle a “stigma” and whether class members experienced dashboard bubbling or were denied a free replacement dashboard if they did. Additional questions involve whether the circuit court should have granted Nissan a new trial. A related issue includes whether one of Hurst’s witnesses was an expert and whether he should have been permitted to testify at trial about whether class members had suffered damages. Other issues involve whether the circuit court should have excluded testimony by witnesses who were not members of the class or by individual owners about alleged future reductions in the value of their vehicles. Additional issues involve whether the verdict-directing instruction failed to identify any specific misrepresentation that Nissan allegedly made, failed to require the jury to identify a misrepresentation and failed to require the jury to identify a resulting ascertainable loss for all class members across every model year. Further questions involve whether the circuit court erred in certifying the class or should have decertified the class. Related issues involve whether class members predominantly shared common issues of fact and law, whether certain asserted misrepresentations or injuries applied only to certain class members, and whether owners who received replacement dashboards or secondary purchasers should have been included in the class. A final question involves whether the circuit court should have awarded attorney fees.

The attorney general filed a brief as a friend of the Court. He focuses his arguments on questions of first impression in this Court of whether “misrepresentation” or “deception” under the state’s merchandising practices act should be defined to exclude puffery and opinions, whether puffery is or should be a defense to a claim under the act, and whether the act requires a consumer to rely on alleged misrepresentations or to be reasonable in such reliance.

SC95707_Nissan_North_America_brief
SC95707_consumers_brief
SC95707_Nissan_North_America_reply_brief

SC95707_Attorney_General_amicus_brief



SC95932
State ex rel. Jeffrey Merrell, Prosecuting Attorney v. The Honorable Robert Craig Carter
Christian County
Authority to appoint a master in a criminal case and to order payment of the master’s fees
Listen to the oral argument: SC95932.mp3
The prosecutor was represented during arguments by Anthony M. Brown, an attorney with Taney County in Forsyth; Pearce was represented by Jason Coatney of The Law Office of Jason Coatney LLC in Springfield.

The state charged Malcolm Brian Pearce in May 2014 in Taney County with two counts each of first-degree statutory sodomy, first-degree child molestation, first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual misconduct or attempted sexual misconduct of a child. The case subsequently was moved to Christian County. In May 2016, Pearce filed a motion to disqualify the Taney County prosecutor, alleging the prosecutor’s office disclosed it had obtained thousands of telephone calls Pearce made from the Christian County jail, including allegedly privileged calls Pearce made to his attorneys. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court overruled the motion to disqualify the prosecutor but appointed a special master to review all telephone call evidence from the case, including future calls. The court made no findings as to whether any of the calls were privileged. In August 2016, the master filed a report detailing his actions but did not make any findings as to whether any calls were privileged as he had been directed to do. The circuit court subsequently ordered Taney County to pay the master’s fees within 30 days. The Taney County prosecutor seeks this Court’s relief.

This case presents several questions for the Court. One is whether any rules of procedure permit appointment of a master in a criminal case or whether such appointment is within a court’s inherent constitutional authority. Other questions involve how a master’s costs are to be paid and whether it was necessary to appoint a master in this case.

SC95932_State_brief
SC95932_Pearce_brief

Supreme Court - Dockets